I'm glad to read those last posts, because the point I've been bashing
home to the point of annoyance is that none of the colleges be it us
or anyone else can predict exams.  It's ludicrous to think its
possible, because no-one knows what internal directions the Law
Society may have given the examiners or, indeed, precisely what is
going on in the examiners mind.  Sometimes, you'll find the most
"weird" exams dovetail with times when the examiner may have been
attending a foreign university as a visiting scholar and one could
query whether this can explain some odd changes.  On other occasions,
the examiner's papers look different just after they have published
something on the area etc.  Contract is a great example of this.  In
2005 two questions on the statute of frauds and land, then never
again, until October 2008 when it comes up in relation to the "one
year" rule.  Capacity was on the exam again this year etc etc.

I try to make it as clear as possible that "tips" ain't the way to
go.  On the other hand, some things have to be said - i.e. mistake is
never off the contract exam, frustration appears quite regularly, the
examiner has been moving towards "discursive" or "reform" based
essays, and the examiner has a weird thing about exclusion clauses
etc.  But anyone selling you predictions is sellling nothing more than
rubbish.

If I could get one lesson home to anyone, it's that the best
preparation is understanding the material.  Its controversial, but I
even personally feel that past exam papers are a bad way to prepare as
they pull people too close to a feeling of dependancy on "patterns"
which simply don't exist.

My real complaint is that the examiners have to play by their own
rules - i.e. not going beyond the syllabus, and I challenge anyone to
find "proprietary" estoppel on the contract syllabus (it's not there,
whereas its plainly stated in property and equity) or worse still
legitimate expectation.


On Apr 10, 10:49 am, Wendy Lyon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/04/2009, lukin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >  Property - word for word exact same topics as last sitting (this is
> >  one that is so hard to fathom)
>
> I assume they were trying to catch people out who decide what to cover
> based on the grid... "Such and such came up last time so it won't this
> time" etc.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 
Study Group" group.
 To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
 For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to